Claims In The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Are False | Sikh Philosophy Network
  • Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Claims In The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Are False

sikhimylife

SPNer
Jan 1, 2011
5
7
http://www.bayanimills.com/2011/10/01/divine-insight-does-nasa-consult-the-guru-granth-sahib/

These are not my opinions but of a publisher by the name of Bayani Mills, I actually think the publisher is taking what Guru Ji is saying out of context and would to get more speculation from Sikhs of how they perceive what the Guru is saying. Then I'll just let my mind contemplate the replies :)

The SGGS makes many vague and subjective statements, many of which are simple musings, interpreted to mean various things, and much if the rest can be derived from general observations.

Claims in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib are false
Many Sikh maintain the SGGS is “100% true”, so I’ll present some of the blatantly false statements made in the GGS about the cosmos.

Guru Granth Sahib states:
“From this primal void, came the moon, the sun and the earth.”
SGGS p1037

This is wrong.

We know that the Earth, Moon, and the Sun need particular elements to form them – they is not pop in to existence, nor were they instantaneously created.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1. Big Bang nucleosynthesis begins about three minutes after the Big Bang, when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to form stable protons and neutrons, after baryogenesis.

Big Bang nucleosynthesis produced no elements heavier than beryllium, due to a bottleneck: the absence of a stable nucleus with 8 or 5 nucleons. In stars, the bottleneck is passed by triple collisions of helium-4 nuclei, producing carbon (the triple-alpha process). However, this process is very slow, taking tens of thousands of years to convert a significant amount of helium to carbon in stars, and therefore it made a negligible contribution in the minutes following the Big Bang.

The formation of the elements that made our solar system took billions of years to come together to eventually form the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon.


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“From this primal void, came the four sources of creation, and the power of speech.”
SGGS p1037

Language has emerged out of the social nature of primates that have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years – it was not created.


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“You created the vast expanse of the Universe with One Word! Hundreds of thousands of rivers began to flow.”
SGGS p3

This is wrong for the same reasons as stated earlier about Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Water requires hydrogen and oxygen, not available at the beginning of the universe. Oxygen had to be created through the formation of stars. There is no way “rivers” started to flow.


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found. No one can know these limits.”
SGGS p5

This is wrong.

We CAN perceive these expanding limits, in fact we have, and we know that The Universe is 13.7 billion years old with an increasing rate of accuracy.


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“Creating the sun and the moon, He infused His Light into them. He created the night and the day; Wondrous are His miraculous plays.”
SGGS p1279

This is wrong.

The moon does not emit light, it reflects the light from the sun. We can even demonstrate how it happens.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,206
Re: "Claims in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib are false"

These are not my opinions but of a publisher by the name of Bayani Mills, I actually think the publisher is taking what Guru Ji is saying out of context and would to get more speculation from Sikhs of how they perceive what the Guru is saying. Then I'll just let my mind contemplate the replies
sikhmylife ji,

I agree with you. The copy of the article could with reflection on the part of all be a very interesting discussion.

But.... something about the arguments against SGGS claims seem almost childish. As if the scientist could not help being so literal. I found myself laughing. Wondering now if others share my reaction. And wondering what their reasons are.
 

Ishna

Enthusiast
Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,249
5,182
Re: "Claims in the Sri Guru Granth Sahib are false"

I just shake my head and shrug. It is all very literal, and if you read the Gurbani and get swept into the rhythm of it (even in poxy ol' English) it makes beautiful sense all in context and all as an awesome song of WOW.

The author seems to be focusing on only those tuks which mention creation. The author neglects that the Big Bang Theory is still a Theory (as well as a TV show... come on, you knew I'd slip TV in there, hehe). And as any good scientist should know, you can't take your theory as proven until it's proven and the only way I can imagine humans can prove it is by reproducing it. Gurbani makes no claims to talk about the how or when the universe was created, it is not the subject matter of the text! (I say 'text' with all due respect to SGGS _/\_ ).

I think the aim of these tuks is to expand the mind of the reader and bring it to it's metaphorical knees with awe that we are so tinsie tinie and the Creative Force is so totally immense and wonderous.

At Gurbani class on Sunday, I really enjoyed it when Uncle Ji got all excited with moustaches bristling, eyes gleaming, giggling, almost jumping out of his chair telling us how our earth, in our galaxy, if you look at it in the context of the UNIVERSE, would be like a grain of sand on the end of your fingertip. And we are in there with our arrogance and our pride - we are so small!

Back to the proper subject of the thread however... The author seems to confuse SGGS with other religious scriptures which indeed claim to be scientific thesis. SGGS is not like that. SGGS is the thesis of the poetry of the soul and needs to be read with the right side of the brain, not the left.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
I can take lines/tuks from Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, use some imagination in interpreting with a taint of convenience and prove what I want! So what is the issue.

I take complete shabads, gurbani compositions and whole of Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji and it all falls by the wayside.

You need imagination to understand or create non-sense, I suppose some choose the latter.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
I think that the person making interpretation of the quote pp1037,he has confused himself with the proper meaning of the word "Sunnum" in the given quote. Here the meaning of the word Sunnum is being considered as "Void" so he feels that the claims in SGGS ji are false.
We can look at the actual meaning of the word 'Sunnum" as reference for the Non Active State of the matter of the Universe then the meanings of the quote would become more clear and true.
Therefore knowing the reference meaning of particular word is very impotant before any conlusion is given on any claims to be true or false in SGGS ji.
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 3, 2010
650
980
UK
“From this primal void, came the moon, the sun and the earth.”
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji p1037

This is wrong.

There was nothing, then something happened (Big Bang) and today we see lots of things including the Sun, Moon and Earth. It does not require a lot of imagination to interpret in this way

We know that the Earth, Moon, and the Sun need particular elements to form them – they is not pop in to existence, nor were they instantaneously created.
Irrelevant including all the waffle afterwards about Big Bang nucleosynthesis as I would not interpret the above in this way



“From this primal void, came the four sources of creation, and the power of speech.”
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji p1037

Language has emerged out of the social nature of primates that have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years – it was not created.
Ok


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“You created the vast expanse of the Universe with One Word! Hundreds of thousands of rivers began to flow.”

This is wrong for the same reasons as stated earlier about Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
More waffle and a complete waste of time. Why even attempt to reconcile religion and science? Science may recognise Word as a Word and not a reference to a creative power. And when the World was in place, rivers did flow as they do today


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“The limits of the created universe cannot be perceived. Its limits here and beyond cannot be perceived. Many struggle to know His limits, but His limits cannot be found. No one can know these limits.”
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji p5

This is wrong.

We CAN perceive these expanding limits, in fact we have, and we know that The Universe is 13.7 billion years old with an increasing rate of accuracy.
This measure is from the point of singularity that is called the Big Bang. It does not account for what may have existed prior to that point

In terms of Onkar, there are no scientific metrics


Guru Granth Sahib states:
“Creating the sun and the moon, He infused His Light into them. He created the night and the day; Wondrous are His miraculous plays.”
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji p1279

This is wrong.

The moon does not emit light, it reflects the light from the sun. We can even demonstrate how it happens
.


Yes but I wonder how much is lost in translation

As a whole I found the essay pointless and the pompous analysis amusing

Thanks
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
spnadmin ji this thread Title is in violation of the spn TOS. When you click on the link the title is totally different.

Couple other things to note,

  • A kid/young man is trying to look for sensationalism for his belief as stated in the article, http://www.bayanimills.com/the-author/) and he seemed to be looking for straws and some mis-interpreted story about Nasa was manouvered (Bayani Mills was the challenger to the possibly mis-guided Sikh)
  • The other stuff is he said/she said with plug for United Punjab website and Giani Sohan Singh Seetal, I don't know much about him personally
The revised article at the quoted URL and it already debunks in the same blog that "literals" are wrong (a view restated by Bayani Mills later in this thread, thanks to Bayani Mills) to be used for Sri Guru Granth Sahib.,


Divine Insight: Does NASA consult the Guru Granth Sahib?

On October 1, 2011, in Other, by Bayani Mills




Of course not.
But, it was something proposed by a Sikh I work with. Perhaps “proposed” is a rather weak term. It was something he was fiercely adamant about. He claimed that NASA consults the Sri Guru Granth Sahib (Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji) for answers to the cosmos and that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji had divine knowledge not known to man at the time.
[Update]: Due to criticisms, I will point out that this is not about *my* interpretation of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I note that this opened recounting that a Sikh I know asserts the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is “literally” true.
If you wish to use the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to reflect on how awesome the universe is, to inspire you to act, go ahead.
The purpose is to:
1) demonstrate that the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji *can not* be taken literally. If you assert that it should be taken literally, you will be shown to be wrong.
2) debunk the myth that NASA “consults” the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji to answer questions about the Universe.
[End Update]
His source was a “news” website. The story seems to have spread since June 2007 as referenced here, and tracking the specific source was made easier with the waybackmachine. The author, Manpreet Singh noted in a blog comment that people had been asking for evidence; apparently with none, he felt that his initial claims have now been validated by this article seven months after the fact.
Note also in reference to the stupidity of escalating hearsay,

if nasa has guru granth saheb and no other religious book,then it is important but if they have all other religious books along with guru granth saheb then it may be their policy.
Sat Sri Akal.
 
Last edited:

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,687
14,344
71
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
HIS LIGHT....is interpreted as "Moon-light" ??? Guru Ji says that the Creator infused "His Light" into his creation..and the writer jumped to claim that the moon reflects sun-light and so Guru ji is wrong ????

Well He also infused "His Light' in ME....but I DONT give out any "light"...reflected or otherwise...(BUT will do so when my dead body is cremated !!)..so is the Guru wrong again about His Light in US...??? I wonder...

"RIVERS"....again the writer only seems to know about earthly "rivers" of water...Scientists are talking about "rivers" of matter..rivers of planets and suns flowing in the galaxies...the MILKY WAY....( is that Cow's milk or Buffalo milk ?? dried powdered milk ?? )

Normally i just IGNORE such drivel...thats why i waited until a few SPNers have written some very well written psots..to add this small post...sheer nonsense...with no substance.
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
We are required to prepare ourselvs to face the challenges of the new era of technology.We should acquire a more clear and logical understanding of the messges of SGGS .
There is no doubt about this that the knowledge within SGGS is superb ,complete and capable of providing appropriate answer to all possible questions in reation to Creator and Creation of the universe.
Every one should appreciate a fact that this is the only scripture in the world revered as GURU.Some people would always remain in confusion how it is so.?
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Prakash S. Bagga ji think again please or answer my question below with specifics,
There is no doubt about this that the knowledge within Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is superb ,complete and capable of providing appropriate answer to all possible questions in reation to Creator and Creation of the universe.

Please forecast the first snowfall in Toronto Canada for this winter and the amount of snow during this event. I need to know so that I can put snow/winter tires on my car.

Your above paragraph is highly disturbing as it leads straight into all kind of grabage about Jyotish, hallucinations, andh vishwas (blind faith), fake cures, fake beliefs, superstitions, and so on.

Please provide reference to Toronto and snow in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji!
Unless you think snow and Toronto are not part of creator's creation.
Sat Sri Akal.
 

Bayani

SPNer
Oct 5, 2011
1
4
35
Hello everyone!

Given I'm the author of the post, I feel I need to clarify some assumptions made by some of the commentators flaming me.

These are NOT my beliefs about the SGGS; it was a Sikh who strongly asserted that NASA consults the SGGS to answer questions about the Universe. The post seeks to demonstrate that the claim about NASA and the SGGS is wrong.

The post looks at how the myth began - by who, how it was spread, and that even if it were true, any serious consultation of the SGGS in a literal manner would result in information that is contrary to what is observed about the Universe.

The translations are NOT my own; they are copy and pasted from the Sikh websites that are cited in the post. So, to reiterate - the interpretation of the SGGS is NOT mine.

As a result, and as was noted earlier, I have updated the initial post due to the criticisms from this forum to clarify my position. Overall, it seems you are all in agreement. The SGGS is not to be taken literally.
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
Bayani ji thanks for the clarification. I went to your blog and saw your writing to be on the correct side versus how the thread was started by whomever. You clearly state and may be interested in also participating here if you wish as there are other sections as we can use all the young blood, new ideas and challenging ideas to keep straight and assessing our thinking.

Literals and lines are the traps for fools young and old and specially when one is looking at musical and poetic compositions which our Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is.

Take care.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
AMBARSARIA Ji,
I have an humble suggestion for you .You should not get disturbed if you actually feel connected with SGGS .We should understand how to respect the views instead loosing our temper just for nothing.Let us behave like a Sikh.
Prakash.s.Bagga
 

Ambarsaria

ੴ / Ik▫oaʼnkār
Writer
SPNer
Dec 21, 2010
3,380
5,687
AMBARSARIA Ji,
I have an humble suggestion for you .You should not get disturbed if you actually feel connected with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji .We should understand how to respect the views instead loosing our temper just for nothing.Let us behave like a Sikh.
Prakash.s.Bagga
Prakash S. Bagga ji I am very interested in specific answer to my question. It could be revolutionary.

I am not disturbed but aghast to see such posts from a learned man of your caliber.

Sat Sri Akal.
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
AMBARSARIA Ji,Since your specfic question does not fall in the purview of Gurbani so it can not be answered However .From Gurbani we can know that Sikhs should not be concerened with the mathematics of forecastings as any such exercise will always result in confusion.So why to be in confusion ? Nothing beyond this.
Prakash.S.Bagga.
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 3, 2010
650
980
UK
Dear Ambarsaria Ji

I can understand where you are coming from. However, my take on what Prakash Ji said was that SGGS will contain all the answers to your
spiritual questions

If I thought it had the answer to everything regardless, then I would be quick to ascertain the next set of winning lottery numbers so I can finally give up work and devote more time to worthy spiritual pursuits!!
 

Seeker9

Cleverness is not wisdom
SPNer
May 3, 2010
650
980
UK
Dear Bayani Ji

Thanks for taking this opportunity to stand up for yourself and clarify your position

With regard to what you regard as "literal" meaning, I would offer the following:

There is a good wiki article on literal meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language
and the first paragraph states:

"Literal and figurative language is a distinction in traditional systems for analyzing language. Literal language refers to words that do not deviate from their defined meaning. Figurative language refers to words, and groups of words, that exaggerate or alter the usual meanings of the component words. This distinction is important as misunderstanding these terms will literally make your head explode. Figurative language may involve analogy to similar concepts or other contexts, and may involve exaggerations. These alterations result in figures of speech."

The language of SGGS is very much in the figurative category so attempting to put a rigid literal construct on it is not helpful

When you have figurative language then you have to interpret, understand and derive meaning. This can be challenging at the best of times but even more so when it is translated into another language...I'm sure we all understand the concept of "lost in translation"

So you may pick up on the literal meaning of "Word" and "Light" whereas the figurative meanings, i.e referring to a Creative power, are completely different

So in that sense, it is entirely feasible to accept what is written as Truth - In the beginning there was nothing and then something happened now we can see stuff around us etc

Another example...I could say "I made a cheese Sandwich for Lunch"

Let's look at that literally shall we?

On one level, yes I did butter the bread and grate the cheese and so assemble the sandwich. So I am true

On another level however, well I didn't make the bread did I? I didn't make the cheese did I? So really, how can I say then that I made a cheese sandwich? So, I am false

This is a simple illustration of what happens when you try to put a literal/scientific construct on everything. Something about square pegs and round holes comes to mind...

Ultimately, it is the age old debate about Science VS Religion. The former boasts validity via empirical evidence whereas the latter is a question of faith. And any attempt to reconcile the two is a complete waste of time!

But thanks again for stimulating discussion
 
Aug 29, 2010
1,514
1,116
68
Can we deny that there are no answers in SGGS regarding the creation of the Universe.
I think that for most of us the answer would be "No".
Any one can try to know this .
Prakash.S.Bagga
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Shabad Vichaar by SPN'ers

This is one of my favourite shabads. Very simple but truly packs a punch with its message. Unfortunately it is not widely known. As previously English literal meanings first, Rawel Singh's...

SPN on Facebook

...
Top